rc3.org Rafe Colburn on software development (and other topics)

I was talking about this on this thread at ObWi. Actually I was defending the TSA – I think Schneier is right about the major security innovations since 9/11 being cabin doors and passengers who will fight, but I think that short-term measures that specifically interfere with identical attacks are worthwhile.

But later on what I said was this: we get the TSA we deserve. It’s not just the media, it’s the people. We rate spectacular airline attacks as vastly more important than the direct casualty count or economic loss would indicate. Last time we had a major attack we invaded two foreign countries, spent a couple of trillion dollars, and got several thousand American soldiers killed. I may be willing to fly with way less security than we have, but a lot of people are not, and frankly if they’re going to react to spectacular attacks they way they actually do, I want the TSA to take every possible step they can to prevent attacks. I don’t care that much about flying and I can deal with the hassle when I need to. Flying sucks no matter what anyway.

I think some criticisms of the TSA procedures are fair, but I think Schneier et al don’t seem to understand that it’s not about a strict cost-benefit analysis. Terrorism has consequences far beyond the people directly affected by it. And I also think it’s a lot easier to criticize security measures when it’s not your head on the line.

I also think that Schneier is inconsistent on this. He praises security based on breaking routines and observation, but a lot of the TSA measures are aimed at exactly that. And while he’s right to point out that getting explosives onto a plane is always going to be possible, the TSA screening procedures make it a lot harder, which gives more opportunities for things to go wrong or for other people to notice what’s happening. And the costs of these measures, well, an extra hour on every trip sure sucks, but it’s not like that hour is usually coming from work time. Most people are taking the day for travel, not coming directly to or from work.

You can never 100% prevent attacks but you might be able to 50% prevent them, and it is quite apparent to me that people value that kind of reduction enough to deal with massive hassles – certainly, as you say, a politician who proposed removing those measures would be hammered on it.

Posted by Jacob Davies on 29 December 2009 @ 7pm